Re: [Foucault-L] Duration, Dasein, Geneology, Archaeology.

Apart from the first paragraph I do, indeed, completely agree with Adam.

The point is what we do with Foucault's works and methods. In order to do that in a proper way, it will be very helpful to get grip on his sources. Also a comparison or confrontation with other philosophers, historians and scholars will be very instuctive. But, please, don't claim him.

As far as the analytic of finitude is concerned, I think that the concept of time and of positive finitude used there by Foucault, is different from Heidegger's. But, not being a well trained Heidegger scholar, I am not sure. I accept that a Heideggerian reading is also a possible way of reading, I am, hover, not convinced that it is the "only" possible way.

yours
machiel karskens

----- "a e leeds" <a.e.leeds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: "a e leeds" <a.e.leeds@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 8:14:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Duration, Dasein, Geneology, Archaeology.
>
> I don't know, I can't agree with Machiel Karstens-- for me the only
> possible
> way to read the Analytic of Finitude is as deeply, fundamentally,
> Heideggerian. Which isn't to say that the Order of Things isn't *also*
> deeply Kantian, but that's exactly what we should expect, Heidegger,
> after
> all, being a neo-Kantian.
>
> Moreover, I find Heideggerian themes guiding me throughout his work. I
> am
> definitely inclined to take Foucault at his word when he says that
> Heidegger
> was the most important philosopher to him. Saying that, in general,
> self-testimonies are not reliable, can hardly be true in general, much
> less
> convincing in the particular.
>
> Since neither of us have much textual evidence to our side, and this
> clearly
> can't be settled, I just wanted to weigh in to show that support for
> the
> MF-as-reader-of-MH position has its real life proponents, and some of
> them
> are among you. :-)
>
> As a parting consideration: Don't all of you find this entire
> discussion of
> whether MF was influenced by this or that person directly and what is
> the
> evidence for it and all that distinctly, well, non-Foucauldian? His
> thought
> is founded on the proposition that there are ways of thinking that are
> non-individual, and he would certainly not be so inconsistent or
> immodest as
> to exempt himself. Ask instead if Heidegger (or Bergson or whoever)
> were
> part of the thoughtworld of the Normalien of the 60s, and your answer
> must
> be, I would imagine, a resounding yes. Which is only the invitation to
> begin
> to limn what that world looks like, not a depiction, to be sure.
>
> Best,
> Adam Leeds
>
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Chetan Vemuri
> <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
> > Even if Foucault didn't rely on Heidegger that much theoretically
> (at
> > least consciously), that doesn't necessarily mean one can't put them
> > in a productive encounter or confrontation.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Nathaniel Roberts
> <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > The biggest promoter of the idea that Foucault was heavily
> indebted to
> > > Heidegger (esp. late Heidegger) is Hubert Dreyfus. The parts of
> his
> > > co-authored book that argue that came from him. His co-author,
> Paul
> > > Rabinow, does not agree. Apart from that book, Dreyfus has a
> couple of
> > > papers on his web site that extend his argument.
> > >
> > > See here:
> http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/html/papers.html<http://socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Ehdreyfus/html/papers.html>
> > >
> > > I'm not endorsing these arguments, by the way. But for those
> interested
> > in
> > > pursuing this line of thought (critically or otherwise), that
> would be
> > one
> > > place to start.
> > >
> > > Nate
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Karskens, M.L.J. (Machiel) <
> > > mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In Foucault's published works, I cannot find indications that
> Foucault
> > >> really was a 'close'reader of Heidegger. In comparaison wih e.g.
> Hegel,
> > Kant
> > >> or Nietzsche there are not many references (18)to Heidegger in
> Dits et
> > >> Ecrits. Nearly all references to Heidegger are by the way or in a
> list
> > of
> > >> names.
> > >>
> > >> Of course, in the interview 'Le retour de la morale' after a
> question on
> > >> Heidegger, Foucault himself said that he was a close reader of
> Heidegger
> > in
> > >> the 1950s, and that Heidegger was the essential philosopher to
> him. So
> > what!
> > >> Self-testimonies are not very reliable. And taking his words as a
> truth,
> > >> even then they do not say that he always has been a close reader,
> he
> > speaks
> > >> only of 1952 and 1953. (see Dits et Ecrits, IV p. 703)
> > >>
> > >> Moreover, I could not find any place in his works where he
> directely
> > >> discusses or analyses a text of Heidegger or one of Heidegger's
> > >> philosophical notions or ideas. Foucault himself also says so in
> the
> > same
> > >> interview.
> > >>
> > >> I could neither detect in his works or in his methods a typical
> > >> Heidegerrian approach or way of thinking. Some people claim that
> the
> > >> Analytic of Finitude in The Order of Things is Heideggerian. I my
> > opinion it
> > >> is much more Kantian, and derived from his thesis on Kant's
> Antropology,
> > >> then Heideggerian.
> > >>
> > >> yours
> > >> machiel karskens
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- "michael bibby" <shmickeyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > From: "michael bibby" <shmickeyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> > To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> > Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 6:17:18 AM
> > >> > Subject: [Foucault-L] Duration, Dasein, Geneology, Archaeology.
> > >> >
> > >> > Certainly, Foucault was a close reader of Heidegger, who in
> turn was a
> > >> > close reader of Bergson. This is also true of Minkowski, and a
> host of
> > >> > others who seem to have rallied around Bergsons book which
> emerged as
> > >> > a balwark against the 'scientific barbarism', 'mechanistic
> > >> > rationality', 'technocrasy' of the age. Perhaps we could say
> that
> > >> > Foucault was reponding, in part at least, to the same crises
> which
> > >> > Bergson, Minkowski, Heidegger, Spengler, and many others were
> > >> > responding to, what we could provisionally call 'the crises of
> > >> > history', 'the crises of modernity'- the temporal crises which
> Elliot
> > >> > found at the crossroads of Little Gidding, the spiritual crises
> which
> > >> > Toynbee saw the west involving the rest of the world in as it
> spread
> > >> > its civilization throughout it.
> > >> >
> > >> > Jungs description of the wandering jew who is unable to draw
> fresh
> > >> > life from the earth through his feet because they have been
> uprooted
> > >> > from their ancestral land could just as easily be applied to
> 'modern
> > >> > man', ahistorical and independent of geographical place,
> rendered
> > >> > mobile and shut up in hismself. Indeed, we see that it was, and
> least
> > >> > of all in Mein Kampf. We could say that this picture of the Jew
> is
> > >> > really a kind of charicture of modern man, more precisely of
> his
> > >> > 'priestly nature', to borrow Marx's expression.
> > >> >
> > >> > The archaic revival in Germany, we read in The Function of the
> Orgasm,
> > >> > can be seen as a responce, although confused as to its object,
> to the
> > >> > 'mystical longing' opened up in the depths of mans alienation
> from the
> > >> > archaeology of the land, from the geneology of his people: just
> as the
> > >> > Jew had an ancient tradition which he carried around with him
> like an
> > >> > arab his tent through the desert, so too the German had the
> > >> > Indo-European- a retrospective hypothesis- geneology to restore
> him to
> > >> > the profundity from which he had become estranged through
> > >> > abstraction.
> > >> >
> > >> > Tarkovsky takes up these themes in his allegory of Solviet
> Russia in
> > >> > the form of the oceanic space-station Solaris: this is the
> precise
> > >> > meaning of the pot-plant, which is the last thing we see before
> we
> > >> > leave the space station- the strange melieu in which it alone
> made the
> > >> > only sense- and return to earth.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > Foucault-L mailing list
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Foucault-L mailing list
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nathaniel Roberts
> > > Visiting Scholar
> > > Department of South Asia Studies
> > > University of Pennsylvania
> > > 820 Williams Hall, 255 S. 36th Street
> > > Philadelphia, PA 19104
> > > USA
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Chetan Vemuri
> > West Des Moines, IA
> > aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> > (319)-512-9318
> > "You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change
> the
> > world"
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Adam E. Leeds
> Ph.D. Candidate
> Department of Anthropology
> University of Pennsylvania, and
> Visiting Researcher
> Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR)
> Москва: +7-985-929-33-49
> US: 914.980.2970
> leeds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list